I think that it is worthwhile to see whose advice has led to results consistent with the advice and whose advice has not yielded results suggested when the advice was offered.  Feel free to dig through my record and show any discrepancies you can find between what I have advised and what any experiment that followed that advice ultimately showed.

Acca ,

Kiss my aura with your BS allegations.  You are probably part of the "drive-by scared free energy clueless rabbit" variety, just like SteelTPU.  You probably can't make a coherent argument to support someone's free energy proposition, or to challenge comments from people like myself or Mark or TK, presumably because you have no education or background in this subject matter. So you are reduced to drive-by nasty comments and then running away.

Chances are you don't even understand what we are saying, all that you know is that it is "bad."

MileHigh

Hello Acca,

I understand that you feel threatened by certain individuals who post here, but do they really mean harm? I don't particularly think so. Instead, they, like any person who cares about accuracy and professionalism, would like to see proper testing procedures before people go hog wild on claiming they invented the piano neck tie and or "free whatever". Fluke corporation, in all their infinite wisdom, calls this "philosophy in practice," and yes, proper understanding of meteorology is a type of philosophy in understanding and avoiding error induced from both humans and machine. Personal bias is a big problem too, such as only looking a favorable data and disregarding conflicting data--this happens all the time! You may want to re-evaluate yourself, particularly your own biases and possible lack of scientific rigor and ethic. Not to say you are lacking, but retrospection is always a good thing.

Personally, I think everyone interested in FE should be more skeptical of the subject. Skepticism to an extreme is bad I agree. Separating personal bias while keeping healthy levels of skepticism is hard, but you do need to question a person's test methods and once you are satisfied that you won't waste your time, build the thing and test it for yourself. I should point out that the public isn't responsible for PROVING an inventor's claims. The inventor needs to instill confidence that they aren't fraudsters and show they actually understand their field of endeavor. As well as present their data in a professional manner using accepted test procedures in the characterization of their invention.

Sometimes people seem against you when they really are trying to help you. Maybe, just maybe, these individuals want you to think critically about the subject of interest and not be a free energy parrot who can only repeat what an inventor tells them. To be honest, thinking for ones self is rather difficult, particularly when it comes to a complex and diverse subject as free energy and all the acompanying physics involved. But once you fully understand the subject (or at least in part), these people's concerns won't strike you as odd. In particular, understanding the limitations imposed by physical relations and the mathematics that describe them, you can start to see where everyone is going in their arguments.

You know, after having written that spiel, and then reading MH's ad hominem, I tend to regret any implied and or remote idea that he had good intentions...  Well we all can't be "gentlemen and scholars;" some people just like to argue, and to what end? It's like mental masturbation, but more sophomoric. Can't we examine an idea or invention without getting emotionally invested?

Real science isn't about attacking peoples character or even proving people right or wrong, it's about examining nature and determining if your hypothesis can explain your observations. Since there is already a strong foundation of accumulated work in place, we often unwittingly rely on it when making certain assumptions: like my voltmeter will read volts and inductance causes a lagging current etc. If someone's claim goes against these assumptions we need to examine the possibility that our assumptions are wrong and need to be corrected. General principles aside, no theory or "law" is above questioning. 

G4R:

My experience is that the vast majority of comments like those of Acca are drive-by comments.  They just drive by and shoot at you and then run away.  They never, ever, try to make a rational technical argument at all.  They disappear only to reappear when some other matter is being discussed that also just happens to be highly dubious with another drive-by shooting.  It's ridiculous.

Beyond that, being called a "paid shill" is not only false, but around here it is akin to being called a child molester.  Add in the fact that the proportion of mentally disturbed people is presumably much higher around here than in the general population.  That can mean the unfounded continuous allegations of "paid shill" could put people like me in danger.  There is a mentally disturbed person actively participating on this forum as we speak.

Beyond that, you have to be mentally disturbed on some level to believe that some Joe Blow playing with a silly little pulse motor that does nothing useful at all is being watched by the government.  That's a hypothetical example but I recall something exactly the same happening about five years ago.

Would you G4R like to be called a child molester nearly every day in your online backgammon gaming forum?  Would you like it?  i don't think you would because perhaps the mentally imbalanced person alleging that you are a child molester would trigger a real-life mentally imbalanced person to try to kill you at the next real-life backgammon tournament.

The most disturbing thing about this forum, and the most disturbing people on this forum, are the technically clueless fools that run around in drive-by fashion and regular fashion calling other people paid government shills just because the other people are making logical technical arguments and expressing their opinions.

MileHigh